Considered and decided by Wright, Presiding
Judge; Halbrooks,
Judge; and Hudson,
Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

WRIGHT, Judge

Relator
challenges the unemployment law judge’s determination that relator is
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for
employment misconduct. We affirm.

FACTS

Relator
Ricardo Regis was employed by J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. (J.B. Hunt) as a
full-time tractor-trailer driver from June 2005 until October 12, 2005, when he
was discharged for failing to report his involvement in an accident while
driving for his employer. Regis applied
for unemployment benefits, and a Department of Employment and Economic
Development adjudicator determined that Regis quit his employment without good
reason caused by the employer and was, therefore, disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits. This determination appears to have
been based on information from a previous employer.[1]

Regis
appealed, and a telephonic hearing was held before an unemployment law judge
(ULJ). Michael Elliott, an account
manager for J.B. Hunt, testified that Regis was discharged because he failed to
report damage to the tractor that he was driving on the evening of October 11 and
the early morning of October 12. At
approximately 3:00 a.m. on October 12, Regis parked the tractor at the J.B.
Hunt facilities. When the next driver
came on duty at approximately 6:00 a.m. and performed a pretrip inspection of
the tractor, that driver discovered damage to the tractor and reported it to
Elliott. Because the onboard computer
did not indicate any ignition activity between 3:00 a.m. and 6:15 a.m., it was
evident that no one had driven the vehicle during this period.

According
to Elliott, the mud flaps on the driver’s side and the passenger’s side of the
tractor were bent and the ramp brackets were broken and bent on the frame. Given the nature of the damage, it could have
been caused only by the driver hooking the frame of the tractor onto the bottom
of the trailer, which occurs when a driver makes a turn while the tractor is
higher than the trailer. Elliott
testified that negligent driving at a location other than the J.B. Hunt parking
lot caused the damage. And because a
loud noise would have accompanied the damage, it is “highly unlikely” that the damage
occurred unbeknownst to the driver.

The
driver’s manual issued to all J.B. Hunt employees instructs them to report all
accidents and warns that failure to do so will result in termination. Drivers are required to inspect their
vehicles before and after every trip. Regis
failed to fill out the form for his posttrip inspection on the date the damage
was detected. When questioned on October
12, Regis denied having an accident, but he admitted failing to perform a
posttrip inspection.

At the hearing, Regis again denied involvement
in an accident and speculated that the subsequent driver caused the damage. Elliott refuted this speculation with
evidence that the ending mileage reported by Regis and the beginning mileage
reported by the subsequent driver were the same and that the first ignition
activity following Regis’s trip occurred at the same time the subsequent driver
reported the damage.

In
his decision dated December 1, 2005, the ULJ determined that Regis was
discharged because of employment misconduct.
The ULJ granted Regis’s request for reconsideration, and in an order dated
January 4, 2006, corrected a factual error and affirmed the determination that
Regis was discharged for employment misconduct and, therefore, is disqualified
from receiving unemployment benefits.
This certiorari appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

When reviewing the decision
of a ULJ, we may affirm the decision, remand it for further proceedings, or
reverse or modify it if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been
prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are “(1)
in violation of constitutional provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory
authority or jurisdiction of the department; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) unsupported by
substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or (6)
arbitrary or capricious.” Minn. Stat. §
268.105, subd. 7(d) (Supp. 2005).[2]

Employment misconduct is “any
intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job (1)
that displays clearly a serious violation of the standards of behavior the
employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee, or (2) that displays
clearly a substantial lack of concern for the employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 6(a) (2004). But “[i]nefficiency, inadvertence, simple
unsatisfactory conduct, a single incident that does not have a significant
adverse impact on the employer, [or] conduct an average reasonable employee
would have engaged in under the circumstances” is not employment
misconduct. Id. An employee who is discharged
for employment misconduct is disqualified from receiving unemployment
benefits. Id., subd. 4(1) (Supp. 2005).

Regis
does not dispute that failure to report an accident, in violation of his
employer’s policies, constitutes employment misconduct. Rather, Regis challenges the ULJ’s factual determination
that Regis had an accident and failed to report it. Regis argues that he neither had an accident nor
caused the tractor to be damaged. The
ULJ’s findings, Regis contends, are based on Elliot’s false accusation. As proof of the accusation’s falsity, Regis
relies on Elliot’s failure to report the accident to the police, failure to
produce photographs of the damage, and failure to provide information about the
subsequent driver or evidence from the tractor’s onboard computer. But the ULJ found that, “[w]hile Ricardo
Regis denied that he had done any damage to his tractor on his last run, the
[ULJ] finds the testimony and documentary evidence presented by J.B. Hunt’s
account manager, Michael Elliott, to be more persuasive.” In light of our deference to the ULJ’s
credibility determinations, the record supports the ULJ’s findings. After weighing the evidence, the ULJ found that
“it appears more likely than not that Regis did, in fact, damage the vehicle
that he was driving, and that he was aware that he had damaged it, and that he
also failed to report these damages to his account manager as required.”

Regis’s arguments are unavailing
because they are rooted in a factual dispute, which the ULJ resolved based on his
assessment of witness credibility and evidentiary weight. When the record is reviewed in its entirety,
the ULJ’s determination that Regis violated his employer’s policies by failing
to report an accident and subsequently was discharged for employment misconduct
is supported by substantial evidence.
Regis, therefore, is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

Affirmed.

[1] Documents in the case file indicate that Regis quit a
previous job.

[2] This standard of review applies to decisions made by
a ULJ on or after June 25, 2005. 2005
Minn. Laws ch. 112, art. 2, § 34.